0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CNN, MSNow, Politico reporters were denied access to the White House despite judge’s order
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:05 pm to loogaroo
Posted on 9/25/26 at 7:05 pm to loogaroo
The Blue States have been ignoring the constitution, federal laws, and court orders.
It is time for the current administration to start saying frick you to Judges.
The Red States need to say frick you to the next Dem administration.
It’s well past time to take the gloves off.
It is time for the current administration to start saying frick you to Judges.
The Red States need to say frick you to the next Dem administration.
It’s well past time to take the gloves off.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:34 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The White House has set up a press briefing room and has set out requirements for any reporter to meet in order to have access to that briefing room (and perhaps other places). There is nothing like that in the chef example.
So the big difference I see is that the chef works for the WH and the reporter doesn't.
And I'm not sure how that matters to the question.
In fact, it seems to me that the logical conclusion is that the chef would have more right to his area than the completely unaffiliated press would have to the WH press room.
quote:
then it would be analogous and the White house would have to justify why it canceled or a chef's pass when the Chef otherwise satisfied all the requirements for obtaining and keeping a pass.
If—by your own description—the White House makes all the rules for access, then the justification is simply that one of the requirements is that continued access is at the sole discretion of the White House and can be revoked at any time for any reason.
Right?
quote:
with the understanding that the President might not like his food and he could be fired for that reason or any other.
As per above, if the press is given that same understanding, then what?
Say Trump lets everybody back in and then Wednesday he announces the above as a new WH policy (assuming it wasn't already), he should be able to then kick out whoever he wants.
If not, why not?
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:52 pm to wackatimesthree
If you found out tomorrow that the State had taken away your license to drive do you believe that you should be allowed to hear why they took it away and allow you to respond to the State's reason?
Posted on 9/26/26 at 6:07 am to medium_okra
As it should be, frick these hack arse fricking judges
Posted on 9/26/26 at 3:41 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If you found out tomorrow that the State had taken away your license to drive do you believe that you should be allowed to hear why they took it away and allow you to respond to the State's reason?
Not exactly.
Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right.
The only right I think I would have in that situation is confirming that the government is following the Equal Protection clause.
But that's different out of the gate. No state issued those press passes. The White House did. And they aren't licenses. The general public isn't allowed to apply for them. The reporter for the local high school isn't allowed to apply for them.
In fact, the White House decides who is allowed to apply for them, doesn't it? It's not the courts, is it?
So does the reporter at the local high school or, say, Candace Owens—who has an audience of millions of Americans—deserve Due Process hearings to determine why she isn't allowed to be considered for a press pass to the WH press room in the first place?
If not, why not?
It's clear that you side with the courts. I still don't understand the argument yet, though. I'm not just saying that or trying to argue.
Nothing you've said yet explains it.
And I think the biggest disconnect comes back to something you said in your original post: "Those access passes are something akin to licenses."
I don't see how that is true.
This post was edited on 9/26/26 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 9/26/26 at 3:44 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If you found out tomorrow that the State had taken away your license to drive do you believe that you should be allowed to hear why they took it away and allow you to respond to the State's reason?
Absolutely
Do you think these Marxist networks don't know the reason they're not allowed in?
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:06 pm to wackatimesthree
A White House press pass is like a drivers license in that anyone can apply and the requirements are clearly stated. If you meet the requirements you get the press pass. It is not a right, you have to meet the requirements but it is also different from a job in that meeting the requirements is all that is required to get the pass, that is not true of a job.
And yes, it is not a State issuing them but it is still the government - in this case the White House.
If a reporter for the local high school can meet the requirements the White House sets to receive a press pass, then they get one. That is what makes it like a license.
And yes, it is not a State issuing them but it is still the government - in this case the White House.
If a reporter for the local high school can meet the requirements the White House sets to receive a press pass, then they get one. That is what makes it like a license.
This post was edited on 9/26/26 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 9/26/26 at 4:59 pm to loogaroo
quote:
CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed an emergency request for a hearing Thursday morning after reporters were refused access to the White House despite a court order
Just let them in, and put them in the bathroom as their new office. Technically they're in the White House so the order has been followed.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 5:51 pm to JimEverett
quote:
A White House press pass is like a drivers license in that anyone can apply and the requirements are clearly stated.
And the White House has the sole freedom to set the requirements and terms. Right?
So now we're back to a couple of questions I asked a couple of posts back that you didn't address.
What if—assuming this isn't already part of the terms—the WH let's everybody back in per the court ruling, then announces a new stipulation that says that any pass may be revoked at the sole discretion of the WH (who has the sole discretion to make all the terms in the first place)?
Then what?
Posted on 9/26/26 at 5:53 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If you meet the requirements you get the press pass.
Do you know that, or are you assuming?
And is it possible for the requirements to be discriminatory, or can they require anything they want as long as it doesn't affect a protected class?
For example, can they say, "We will only consider reporters working for the following organizations for a press pass," and then give a list?
Posted on 9/26/26 at 7:35 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
And the White House has the sole freedom to set the requirements and terms. Right?
Yes, just like the State has the sole freedom to set requirements for a drivers license.
quote:
What if—assuming this isn't already part of the terms—the WH let's everybody back in per the court ruling, then announces a new stipulation that says that any pass may be revoked at the sole discretion of the WH (who has the sole discretion to make all the terms in the first place)?
Just like a drivers license, I would think the State would have to come up with a reason to arbitrarily revoke a persons' drivers license that has something to do with the regulations stipulated to get one in the first place.
Do you not think so? You think the government can announce requirements for receiving a privilege and then just willy-nilly deny someone that privilege? I imagine you would rightfully raise a stink if the government did that to your drivers license.
quote:
And is it possible for the requirements to be discriminatory, or can they require anything they want as long as it doesn't affect a protected class?
I don't know how discriminatory the requirements can be. But I know that the government, in this case the White House, cannot violate the Constitution in setting those requirements.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 7:37 pm to JimEverett
Nothing in the Constitution about it so I'm good with it.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 7:53 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Do you not think so? You think the government can announce requirements for receiving a privilege and then just willy-nilly deny someone that privilege?
They do it with property rights all the time. Eminent domain, forfeiture, etc.
We have a right to own property—and it's actually a right enumerated in the constitution, unlike the right to a press pass—until the government decides we don't. Any time they want.
But again—for the third time—what happens if Trump let's everybody back in, then either announces that terms of having a press pass going forward includes the understanding that the pass can be revoked at will...OR, updates the list of companies who can be considered for the press pass?
Posted on 9/26/26 at 7:57 pm to loogaroo
quote:
CNN, MSNow, Politico reporters were denied access to the White House despite judge’s order
How unfortunate.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 8:01 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
My question was: "What court orders are they ignoring?"
Why aren't you asking what laws are they ignoring?
Posted on 9/26/26 at 8:08 pm to Boodis Man
quote:
People cheering on ignoring judges orders.
Just keep that same energy when the dems come back into power.
Left already ignores the law. From DEI to immigration to BLM/antifa riots, they don't care.
Posted on 9/26/26 at 8:20 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Why aren't you asking what laws are they ignoring?
I'm not aware of any laws they are ignoring either.
Tell me.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 9:09 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
They do it with property rights all the time. Eminent domain, forfeiture, etc.
We have a right to own property—and it's actually a right enumerated in the constitution, unlike the right to a press pass—until the government decides we don't. Any time they want.
No, the governmemt does not take your peoperty all the time without a hearing. That would be a violation of 5th Amendment due process. Your example supports the idea that hearing, at a minimum, is required.
quote:
But again—for the third time—what happens if Trump let's everybody back in, then either announces that terms of having a press pass going forward includes the understanding that the pass can be revoked at will...
He can do so but upon rwvocation there must be a hearing where the governme t must explain its action and the petitioner gets to respond. If the reasoning for revocation is constitutionally permissible (no 1st amendment violation for example) then fine.
quote:it would depend on the basis for excluding the companies the gov't wants to exclude.
OR, updates the list of companies who can be considered for the press pass?
Posted on 9/27/26 at 9:28 am to JimEverett
quote:
If you found out tomorrow that the State had taken away your license to drive do you believe that you should be allowed to hear why they took it away and allow you to respond to the State's reason?
No, not if I had just purposely crashed my vehicle into the American people.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 9:38 am to JimEverett
quote:
He can do so but upon rwvocation there must be a hearing where the governme t must explain its action and the petitioner gets to respond. If the reasoning for revocation is constitutionally permissible (no 1st amendment violation for example) then fine.
So just hold a hearing and when it's time to stand up and speak and the judge says, "Why is it that you've decided to revoke access?" the representative would say, "Because we feel like it. Revocation is at our sole discretion, judge."
What a waste of time and resources.
quote:
If the reasoning for revocation is constitutionally permissible (no 1st amendment violation for example) then fine.
quote:
If the reasoning for revocation is constitutionally permissible...it would depend on the basis for excluding the companies the gov't wants to exclude.
Well that's why I asked above if the WH has sole discretion to set its own terms. You said you didn't know how discriminatory they are allowed to be—and that's fine if you don't know—but that's an important question. It's kind of the crux of the matter.
O.k., I did what I should have done from the start of this and did some Googling.
The WH does NOT have sole discretion to set its terms for press access.
The judicial branch is highly involved, and there are relevant court case precedents.
Whether that in and of itself represents a constitutional over reach is debatable, but that is the case.
The interesting part is that some of the requirements for access are in place to prevent lobbying or advocacy arms for a specific political party from having access.
If it goes to court, someone could make a hell of an argument that CNN was exactly that. Especially after they've been caught editing a POTUS candidate's interview to make her look better and giving her interview questions beforehand to accomplish the same.
In any case, thanks fo the responses.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News